Gorsuch and Rice on different paths

How should a majority of Americans respond to Neil Gorsuch's elevation to the Supreme Court? With elation, for starters.

Gorsuch represents one of the finest judicial minds in the land and is eminently qualified to fill the seat left vacant by the death of conservative jurist Antonin Scalia.

His confirmation will return the court to its full component of nine jurists, and end the run of 4-4 split decisions on important issues that followed Scalia's death.

Democrats are fearful that Gorsuch will adopt the Republican agenda and reverse the law of the land on abortion, gay and transgender rights, and other issues.

The fact is that court nominees don't always reflect the viewpoints of the president who nominates them. This is the beauty and strength of an independent judicidary under the U.S. Constitution.

Republicans share in the blame of the present politicization of the confirmation process. They refused to accept President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, for a confirmation hearing after Scalia died, saying they would leave it up to the next president to make the choice (While Democrats protested, they did so mildly believing that Democrat Hillary Clinton would be the next president.)

Most likely the Republican majority will fight off a Democrat filibuster and enact the so-called "nuclear option" to get Neil Gorsuch across the goal line. If it happens, so be it. Democrats did the same thing when they controlled the Senate, under former U.

How much longer can the mainstream media ignore the fact that the Obama administration spread confidential -- and negative -- information about the incoming Trump team? It's now very clear that Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, has some explaining to do. It was Rice who sought to unmask the identities of Americans connected with Trump's campaign and transition team who were mentioned in foreign surveillance intelligence reports. Why? That is the question Republicans have every right to get Rice to answer before a congressional committee.

Rice has a history of lying. On a March 22 appearance on the PBS News Hour, she denied knowing anything about the surveillance reports on the Trump team. Previously, she lied to the nation behind the reasons for the 2012 Benghazi attack in which four Americans were killed. It's clear she'll do anything to protect former President Obama. Rice was behind Obama's executive order to make it easier to disseminate intelligence reports among government's 17 agencies, a move that happened two months prior to the Trump administration moving into the White House. Why the late and unusual policy change? Was it to make sure the information would be leaked to the press?

Susan Rice is no patriot. It's time to unmask her misconduct in the White House.

Welcome to your discussion forum: Sign in with a Disqus account or your social networking account for your comment to be posted immediately, provided it meets the guidelines. (READ HOW.)
Comments made here are the sole responsibility of the person posting them; these comments do not reflect the opinion of The Sentinel and Enterprise. So keep it civil.